This is getting ridiculous! You should disable user registrations, and have people send a message when they want to sign up. Then, you can go through and remove all of the spam users. It's very annoying, and highly degrades the value of this wiki.

Agreed. It is very demoralizing to see the Wiki polluted with advertisement noise. --[[User:Eva-02|Eva-02]] ([[User talk:Eva-02|talk]]) 18:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

+

==Edit war!==

==Edit war!==

So we're having our first head-butting editwar at [[Recommended software (Windows)]]. My POV - a Micro$hit shill is trying to remove cited information. I assume we have no policies in place for much of anything at this time, so I am inclined to editwar until one of us is told to pike off.

So we're having our first head-butting editwar at [[Recommended software (Windows)]]. My POV - a Micro$hit shill is trying to remove cited information. I assume we have no policies in place for much of anything at this time, so I am inclined to editwar until one of us is told to pike off.

Latest revision as of 20:49, 17 March 2014

Contents

Disable user registrations!

This is getting ridiculous! You should disable user registrations, and have people send a message when they want to sign up. Then, you can go through and remove all of the spam users. It's very annoying, and highly degrades the value of this wiki.

With respect, but frustration--Chchjesus (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It is very demoralizing to see the Wiki polluted with advertisement noise. --Eva-02 (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit war!

So we're having our first head-butting editwar at Recommended software (Windows). My POV - a Micro$hit shill is trying to remove cited information. I assume we have no policies in place for much of anything at this time, so I am inclined to editwar until one of us is told to pike off.

Just bringing it to your attention. Toynbeeidea (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2014 (EST)

My POV: read the article, it doesn't say what that MSE is useless/shit and you shouldn't use it. But anyway, I don't care at all about Windows, so I'll just not edit it anymore. Spittie (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2014 (EST)

since when do we recommend windows or anti-virus software? i will handle this. the next person editing that section will get blocked. --Bisasam (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2014 (EST)

Perhaps the FAQ could be replaced with just a list of popular topics like it was before? Also, I disagree. I think the old design looked ugly and incomplete. --Chchjesus (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2014 (EST)

Yeah, i think we should definitely add the old table back, it was a lot easier to find your way through the pages this way. The black borders were ugly though, but i can fix that. the table will expand when more text is entered so splitting up desktop customization and other edits you did should be fine. --Bisasam (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2014 (EST)

At least make the table look more even, and change the lines around it. The spacing looks waaaay off on that table--Chchjesus (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2014 (NZST)

I merged the table and your list.--Bisasam (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2014 (EST)

"we dont need a page on windows."

Bisasam deleted page Windows (we dont need a page on windows.)

Why not?

Because we dont fucking recommend it. its fucking terrible. And its bad enough some of us are forced to use it because certain software requires it. what the hell would you write about it anyway? there is no information on windows we can pass on to newcomers, that cant be found elsewhere a lot easier. you see, we promote usage of ath m50s and model ms instead of beats and razer keyboards even though large websites and magazines rate the ricer crap higher because we are RIGHT and our opinion is DIFFERENT (which implies they are WRONG). So what information directly on windows can we share? We have a software and a ricing page, and thats all we should really cover. All reasonable gentoomen agree that windows is inferior to all other mayor operating systems (except in the aspect of software availability). Dont get me wrong, if you have information that is /g/s opinion, fairly unique, and not covered by other windows pages, add it. I just dont want this page to be any of this:

" Windows is an operatin system developed by microsoft. It dominates the desktop market. It uses the nt kernel and ntfs filesystem. Its current version is 8.1." etc.

" Windows is the only true OS, and everyone not using it is a nerd. You probably dont have a job and i make millions with my productive adobe software. get a life xD"

Before i deleted the page, this was exactly what this page was made of. We really appreciate contributions, but i hope you can understand why it is so difficult to create a windows page that is not useless. Alternatively, the windows page could be a portal page.

Why would we not have a page for Windows? Let's consider the fact that there is both a page for OSX and GNU/Linux—both of which pail in comparison in regards to usage even on /g/. I contend that most of the users of Windows simply refrain from discussing it do to the hostility and drive-by remarks presented by many Linux users, particularly those who refer to themselves as 'free software advocates'. Just looking at the GNU/Linux page shows that it's dominated by those slogan-reciters and proliferators of the half-baked total free software philosophy. How much of that page consists of information which cannot easily be found on fsf.org or Wikipedia? To point out potential cliches of a Windows page while having such blatant display of it on pages you endorse seems to be either a poorly applied premise on your part, or shameless bias. The point here is not that "Oh, Windows is used by almost every computer user in the world," a true statement, but rather that most of /g/ use it and the information held by a wiki by /g/, for /g/ is appropriate. Also consider the fact that this is now the bona fide, official wiki of /g/.

If your only significant contention against the page is that you seek that the wiki not "endorse" of such software or that its your own opinion (or perhaps of several people) I think it should be clear that this is all still based on relative opinion, not an objective truth. I run Windows, I've also run Linux for years; I'm not stupid you see, the problems often attributed to Windows are more-often-than-not the result of stupidity, a lack of Common Sense 2014, et cetra. You get the point. I know what I'm doing, and I'm never going to click a "one weird trick" add or execute malware. The point I'm making is that /g/ users have at least some capacity to reason, and so using Windows is not a problem for them. I'm purposely avoiding commenting of state surveillance which is made easier by closed-source software, as that is a political issue.

While writing this, there are at present twelve threads on /g/ mentioning Windows in the OP (https://boards.4chan.org/g/catalog#s=Windows). And what's more, within threads, there is further discussion about the operating system.

Here are some surveys/threads proving my assertion that most (or at least a very significant portion) of /g/ users run Windows:

But ah, "All reasonable gentoomen agree that windows is inferior to all other mayor operating systems (except in the aspect of software availability)." I don't agree and it seems most of the board in fact doesn't agree with its loudest vocal minority.

I don't see reason to believe the page would be host to vandalism, however, why is it more likely to suspect than on Linux pages? All that's needed in such situations is moderation, and, if necessary, a sticky at the top of the page demanding civility. I was not able to see the state of the page before its deletion, however with a sticky and perhaps a temporary lock, the page can actually have a chance to work instead of being shot down right away. I mean consider what you're creating—Linux is the 'official' and sanctioned OS of /g/, and the free software philosophy is indisputable. No room for the largely dissenting opinion of Windows' users who don't give a fuck about poorly applied philosophical talking points. Linux isn't divine.

Regardless of which operating system people use and prefer and regardless of which system is recommended, I'm sure there are lots of useful information to be shared about Windows. As someone who uses Windows as well as Arch in VirtualBox, I'd benefit from that information.

Activation

How to customize the desktop

How to disable unneeded services

How to reduce bloat

How to disable annoying features

How to disable the windows update nag screen

Registry editing

Command line tools

Binary utilities

System administration commands

Cmd.exe

PowerShell

Custom terminal emulators

Cygwin

As per wiki policy, people come here to be informed. The first example provided by Bisasam is actually relevant, though in desperate need of expansion. The other two are shitposting. Honestly, the same thing could happen to the OS X page I created, or any of the Linux distro pages, especially stuff like Ubuntu and Arch.

Instead of provoking and participating in an edit war, just like you did in Browsers, please take the discussion to the talk page. WubTheCaptain (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2014 (EST)

i did. even before you posted this. --Bisasam (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2014 (EST)

On a related issue, how can edit wars be prevented on topics such as browsers, operating systems, software, and the like?

It seems they've been happening with some frequency. They're not really constructive. Our pages shouldn't be /g/ shouting matches. Just because /g/ hates something, doesn't mean they have to pour their hate for it on the wiki article. They're just imposing their opinion through the wiki. People come here to be informed, not to have their stereotypes reinforced. For example, IE has been shit for so long that everyone knows it's crap by now, but the latest version is actually a pretty capable browser. It's a fact that Microsoft is trying to fix its tarnished reputation, and it should be mentioned.

Personally, I think we should just impartially point out all the facts we know about the software, no holds barred, in fully technical language.

As an admin, it is my duty to prevent them. I agree with you on the IE part, but since the browser is not cross-platform and not used by many people on /g/, i let them have their fun. feel free to delete the page or waste your time creating a real page.
If /g/ hates something, it hates it for a reason. we should point out that reason, and thats it. --Bisasam (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2014 (EST)

Well, I'm sure there are reasons /g/ hates it. We can list those facts on the page in a way that it's informative and truthful, not just yet another opinion. I don't like IE either and I don't use it, so I'm not really qualified to say anything about it. I don't think deleting the page is OK; it's a net loss for the wiki because it reduces the amount of useful information. However, I won't waste my time fighting edit wars, either. --Eva-02 (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2014 (EST)

Copyright Policy

Is there an official stance on copyrighted images and/or text? --Tibs (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2014 (EST)

US copyright laws apply to this wiki since the servers are located in USA. Not official stance, but from legal point the correct thing to do since we retain that data for indefinite period of time (unlike imageboards and archivers which prune frequently). WubTheCaptain (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2014 (EST)

That's rather vague, copyright applies to almost every file on this wiki. Just tag them appropriately with licenses if you're allowed to use them, such as Creative Commons. WubTheCaptain (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2014 (EST)

Does fair use enter into this at all? For the sake of completeness logos are nice to have. Also, the copyrights on some images are rather hazy. --Tibs (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2014 (EST)

File:Lfs-logo.png is one example I think may fall under fair use, I had tagged it for delete candidate earlier. Better example would be File:Arch-linux-logo.png, which I also tagged to be used in fair use. It may be better to retain lower resolution images for the purpose of identification only to side more with the copyright laws. WubTheCaptain (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2014 (EST)

I also figured some content was covered under Fair Use or something like that. Personally, I just did what my peers were apparently doing. I saw in the recent changes page that they were adding images, so I did, too. Some users had an image on their pages, so I added one for myself, too. Didn't really know if it violated copyright. I admit I didn't care at the time. --Eva-02 (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2014 (EST)

we will probably never have to deal with actual copyright problems. this is mostly a countermeasure against the possibility of people wanting to harm the wiki for whatever reason. --Bisasam (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2014 (EST)

It's also easier to tag them with licenses right away instead of having to deal with tens, hundreds or thousands of images to be licensed later under pressure. WubTheCaptain (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2014 (EST)

How do I figure out the license for each file? Most of the files I've uploaded here were sitting on my 4chan /g/ folder. On the unlikely event they weren't downloaded from 4chan itself, I probably wouldn't even remember where I got them.

I suppose I should just reverse image search the image and see what I can find? --Eva-02 (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2014 (EST)

Some of them are unfortunately hazy, we should try to tag licenses as much as we can or otherwise we're claiming them to be in public domain, which may cause a lot more pain for authors that do not want their content here. Reverse image search may be good. Technically, 4chan uses those images commercially, which may be another gray legal standpoint although they cannot be held liable for content their users have uploaded. The very least we could do on images that cannot be identified is to tag them as "unknown license, if you know a license please add it or if you're the author of this image and want it to be removed contact us (or have a DMCA page somewhere), not in public domain, copyright may apply", or if it's original content from 4chan such as infographics it may be tagged as fair-use attributing 4chan for it. WubTheCaptain (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2014 (EST)

I'll bring up this subject again. I think we might be obliged to really follow copyright and remove any file with unknown license, given a short timeline for the uploader to be able to fix it with a notice. It would also encourage people to create free "alternatives" that we can host. I'll be working closely with templates, including copyright, to make things easier for users. WubTheCaptain (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2014 (EST)

I agree. We should act now, before there is more cleaning up to do. First of all, information on handling copyright should be added to the Guide to editing this wiki. Next, we should skim over the uploaded media in an effort to REPLACE shit we can not use on here, or to tag licenses. Finally, we need to keep an eye out for the new uploads.--Bisasam (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2014 (EST)

/g/wiki:Copyright is recommended, it's below the summary box on edit page too to instruct users. A note on /g/wiki:Guide to editing this wiki would be fine too. Also, I have always been hoping that this wiki would switch from Public Domain to CC BY-SA-3.0 or 4.0. It might be useful if I was sysop on this wiki to have larger permissions to edit MediaWiki: pages, such as licenses that appear on upload pages. It seems Special:UserRights is also restricted so people cannot see bureaucrats/sysops on this wiki. Wrong page (Special:ListUsers/sysop) User:Bananafish would have to do that.WubTheCaptain (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2014 (EST)

Move request

Uh, okay, I didn't really ask to delete it but that works too. WubTheCaptain (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2014 (EST)

Spambot ban policies

I reckon you should not ban spambots indefinitely. It may do more harm than any good. They're going to post once and leave anyway, so a "short" 30-90 day ban is more than enough too. WubTheCaptain (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2014 (EST)

If you say so, but what harm can it do?--Bisasam (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2014 (EST)

I can't remember if blocking account creation only lasts for 24 hours or longer, probably the length of ban. This would hurt legitimate users attempting to register and contribute. WubTheCaptain (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2014 (EST)

It blocks account creation from the same IP only.--Bisasam (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2014 (EST)

Which is what we don't want to do for indefinite period of time, because anonymous editing is disabled. WubTheCaptain (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2014 (EST)

I dont a real user will ever have the same IP some russian spammer has --Bisasam (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2014 (EST)

WhatLinksHere

left a redirect for now --Bisasam (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2014 (EST)

And you created multiple double redirects by doing that without fixing WhatLinksHere first. I've fixed them for now. Not to mention you left Template:Move on GNU/Linux ricing page. WubTheCaptain (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2014 (EST)

Some ideas to stop the spam

What if we put captchas to edit the articles like in Encyclopedia Dramatica? Or just ban all the IPs from Russia? Maybe that one was too excessive but would work if other solutions didn't work. Cheers. --Epilepticsoldier (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Since there are not a lot of inscription, I suggest you to make use of a user whitelist system.

A user white-list would also be effective, and the amount of users is small enough for it to be doable. I don't think it will get rid of the pollution in "Recent changes", though. Captcha is a good idea. --Eva-02 (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)